memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Context Is for Kings (episode)
Renaming This (and a bunch of other articles) were moved, all to capitalize the word 'is' or 'it'. While the impetus by the user who moved all of these was good, based on Memory Alpha:Naming conventions, my strong feeling is that these moves to capitalize 'is' and 'it' were incorrect (perhaps the naming conventions policy needs tweaking a bit to correct it). I do wish that mass renames like this were discussed, but sometimes, as we all know, that does not happen. Anyone else have thoughts on this? (Note that StarTrek.com refers to the capitalization for this episode as "Context is for Kings".) -- sulfur (talk) 09:52, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :At work, so, briefly - IMO, naming conventions should not override EDIT: clear evidence of the actual /EDIT name of a thing (cf ATFW, ATFP - it's right there on the cover!). :Here, I took the capitalisation from the TrekCore article announcing it, so I assume that was in line with whatever source info they received. The CBS announcement video displayed it all in caps, and we now know there will be no title cards (unless they change that decision!), so there is unlikely to be any further help there. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 10:09, September 27, 2017 (UTC) ::Without a script or a quote I'd say go with the with the website. -- Compvox (talk) 10:42, September 27, 2017 (UTC) ::: This does bring an interesting problem to light: :::*Here are some existing examples of variation in use of "is": and , but also and :::* There are several inconsistencies found in "of", "the", and "a", the following are the capitalized exceptions to what are otherwise lowercase titles in database: , , , , , . --Alan del Beccio (talk) 11:29, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :I think that last set are examples of my first point, Alan - we've taken the casing of the title card over what would be considered the naming conventions. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 15:05, September 27, 2017 (UTC) ::: Agreed. "Please refer to naming conventions" would apply when the episode titles are all caps, unless it's and (I guess). Out of curiosity, was there a title card for either of the first two episodes? --Alan del Beccio (talk) 15:14, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :I believe the latter is based on the script, judging from Memory Alpha:Episode data project/titles. And, no, no title card (at least, not on Netflix). -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 15:47, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :::: Why would we follow the styling on a title card rather than apply standard English norms? Shall we move Star Trek: Discovery to STAR TREK DISCOVERY? It is easier and more logical to just stick to a standard English capitalization style rather than have random exceptions based on how someone chose to typset a given cover. Otherwise, we will have ''THE CAPTAIN’S DAUGHTER'' rather than The Captain's Daughter (note the typographic apostrophe), ''STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE MISSION γ GAMMA BOOK THREE OF FOUR CATHEDRAL'' rather than Cathedral, ''STAR TREK THE ORIGINAL SERIES CHILD OF TWO WORLDS'' rather than Child of Two Worlds (note that I can't seem to get the drop caps to work on "of" but the CSS is there...), etc. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 16:51, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :::: And why would someone move The Tree of Life, the Branches of Heaven back to The Tree of Life, The Branches of Heaven? Why would "the" be capitalized mid-title? Note that it is also correctly titled on Memory Beta. This is just random. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 16:56, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :::::While there are no title cards, the episode title will be shown in the CBS All Access and Netflix menu. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 22:30, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::For another example of pretty absurd adherence: All I really need to know I learned from watching Star Trek (which I am moving to proper capitalization). By all means, we can have a rule that says that article titles need to be styled like they are on covers or titlecards but that's not what the policy is and it opens up a huge can of worms for many, many problems. Using standard English capitalization is the rule and is sensible. It's not perfect but it's infinitely more replicable, intuitive, and requires much less conjecturing on how an article should be titled. I'm suggesting that we stick with the current standard and until there is consensus to do otherwise (i.e. changing the actual policy page), then I'll be operating under that assumption. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 20:50, September 28, 2017 (UTC) ::::Alternately, see These Are the Voyages... which had arbitrary capitalizations of "are" in a previous revision but those titles aren't styled to match a cover--e.g. CCG: These Are the Voyages, where the cover art is in all caps anyway. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 21:13, September 28, 2017 (UTC) ::: First of all, please keep your place in the talk page indent line. Second, yes, some of this you speak is true, but you are also talking about a content policy that predates the exceptions, namely the precedence where we mimic titles as they are written, re: "All I really need to know I learned from watching Star Trek". Third, please stop moving pages being discussed, or related to pages being discussed, before anyone else places any input in the discussion. Sort of what was already said in the very first line of this talk page. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 21:27, September 28, 2017 (UTC) ::::Actually, User:Gvsualan, I was not replying to another's comment, so I should not have used the colons to indent it. Furthermore, you directly responded to my comment with two less colons. I deliberately did not move anything that anyone could deem contentious--are you suggesting that the ones I mentioned above are? I'll be happy to wait until you think there is some kind of consensus to change the policy--how long do you suggest? —Justin (koavf)·T· · 06:22, September 29, 2017 (UTC) Actually, MA:TALK. This isn't Wikipedia. This isn't the Peanuts wiki, Indenting stays consistent so that it's easy to tell who is who. -- sulfur (talk) 09:40, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::...You didn't indent the post above... —Justin (koavf)·T· · 15:45, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::: He started the discussion, he doesn't have to. I was the 4th person to join this discussion, that's why I have 3 colons. You joined after I did, so you add a +1. Simple math. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 15:47, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::You indent to what you're replying to not some number of when you joined the conversation. You're making it impossible for blind users to follow this using a screen reader. Please don't change the correct formatting of my comments. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 22:06, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::::This is Memory Alpha, not Wikipedia. We use the system that we use, not what Wikipedia uses, so Wikipedia policy is not relevant. The system has worked well for most of the 15 years this site has been active, with few complaints. 31dot (talk) 22:51, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::I didn't mention Wikipedia, so I don't know why you did. Can you please explain why you are saying irrelevant things? —Justin (koavf)·T· · 01:30, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Whatever it is you cited above, it is not MA policy and irrelevant. 31dot (talk) 01:50, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::Actually, MediaWiki software is what powers Memory Alpha so it is relevant. You can also see the equivalent tutorial from Wikia: "To respond to a talk page message, simply edit that section of the talk page, and indent your reply. You can indent by putting a colon (":") at the front of each line." In order to respond to comments, you should add one additional colon. Again, this also makes it parsable by other agents, so it's very valuable for accessibility. Between the way that the software is designed and the cross-site recommendations, I think that is what should change--if you want to identify who said what, that is easily accomplished by looking at a signature at the end of the comment. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 02:10, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::For that matter, the CSS on the site can be changed to make comment flow more obvious if that's a concern of the community. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 02:12, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::: You point is moot. We already cited MA guidelines. Anything else is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. PS you are on the fringe of breaking MA:POINT with this and the page move stuff. So tread carefully. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 05:08, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::Well, I cited the guideline for the page move but it seems like others want to ignore it. I'm confused as to the role of having these guidelines if they are applied capriciously. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 06:03, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::::MediaWiki does not dictate policies to us or otherwise control how we operate. If you want to change the structure of talk page discussions that we have had for many years quite successfully, please discuss it at Ten Forward. Otherwise, please respect these longstanding processes. 31dot (talk) 09:38, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Regarding the actual issue here, though there are no title cards, the next best thing is how the episode title is displayed in the All Access menu, since that's currently the only way to access the episode. I'm assuming Netflix overseas is the same, but if it isn't, then we should defer to CBS(since they own the series directly). If scripts are released in the future, then we could use that. 31dot (talk) 09:42, September 30, 2017 (UTC) :::::::Sorry if this has already been stated, but the Netflix menu formats the titles as "The Vulcan Hello" and "Battle at the Binary Stars". --Defiant (talk) 13:57, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::31dot, if I'm understanding correctly, it is you who are unilaterally ignoring policy on the site. Perhaps you would like to post a proposed change to that forum or revert yourself so that you are in line with policy regarding page names. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 21:20, October 1, 2017 (UTC) Our practice is to use capitalization as per the print (ie, covers, title cards, production sources, etc). When those fail, we flip back over to the policy. -- sulfur (talk) 22:07, October 1, 2017 (UTC) Forum topic Please see Forum:Do we want to ignore or follow the policy on page name capitalization?. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 21:28, October 1, 2017 (UTC) Capitalization Starting a new section instead of adding to the mess above. CBS All Access titles this episode "Context Is for Kings". Is this also the case for Netflix? -- UncertainError (talk) 03:16, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :It's "Context is for Kings" on Netflix. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 08:57, October 2, 2017 (UTC) ::As I suggest above, IMO we should defer to CBS's wording/capitalization as they own Star Trek directly where Netflix is a third party airing Star Trek. 31dot (talk) 11:27, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :::(edit conflict) The talk page so far has been about "the mess above". Title card (none, N/A), CBS AA (now)/Netflix (moot per CBS AA), final script (none yet & my preference after the card, N/A), production source quote (none yet except for maybe st.com, so N/A). I don't mind being on the 'wrong' side of CBS AA or its dubious data entry. But there it is. -- Compvox (talk) 11:47, October 2, 2017 (UTC) First mutineer note The following is in this article: "Michael Burnham is referred to as "the first Starfleet mutineer," but this isn't accurate, with Starfleet mutineers previously depicted in such episodes as ENT: "Hatchery" and "Bound"." In both of those instances one side was under the influence of something, so were those really mutinies? Further, no one seems to have been punished after the fact in those two instances. "First mutineer" might simply mean the first person convicted of mutiny. 31dot (talk) 11:29, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :I thought we didn't allow speculation on pages?! Kidding aside, "Hatchery" repeatedly refers to the mutiny in that episode specifically as a "mutiny". Also, Burnham is likewise technically under the influence of something when she mutinies: i.e., her Vulcan upbringing. If that's not enough, it's also speculated on-screen that she might also be under the influence of having been knocked unconscious by the torchbearer. So, yeah, that incident is just as valid as the other 2 I've cited. --Defiant (talk) 11:42, October 2, 2017 (UTC) ::Techincally, that was in the UE Starfleet, not this (the Federation) Starfleet. Kennelly (talk) 11:48, October 2, 2017 (UTC) Burnham was not judged by the court martial as not responsible for her actions due to some external influence(which wouldn't include the way she was raised). No one was convicted of mutiny in the two ENT instances so from a legal standpoint Burnham is the first mutineer. 31dot (talk) 11:52, October 2, 2017 (UTC)